Back
to top
Kant and Foot
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives, rather than categorical imperatives (Philippa Foot)
Kant - failing to act in accordance with categorical imperative is failure of reason, and morally wrong. Kant - Imperative something ought to be done. Hypothetical imperatives state should to do action as means to end - if committed to getting good education, should study hard even when don’t feel like it. Categorical imperatives present action as must do, without regard to other end. Kant - they’re objective and acting on them is rational, rather than fulfilling subjective desire. Foot notes we contrast moral judgements with hypothetical imperatives in this sense. There are 2 uses of should/ought: 1) person no longer wants what the hypothetical imperative assumes, so should no longer act on it – should take third left, if want to go restaurant. If no longer want to go to restaurant, then no longer take third left. 2) use should/ought when don’t withdraw claim that you should do something – “you shouldn’t lie “, “I want to lie because I want to deceive people””what you want is irrelevant”, here, you can’t escape requirement to act just because it doesn’t suit you.
when you no longer want to go to the restaurant, what does not acting on the hypothetical imperative prove? also, isn't you shouldn't lie a moral judgment and not an hypothetical imperative? so why has Foot used that example?
Joe312
Kant - failing to act in accordance with categorical imperative is failure of reason, and morally wrong. Kant - Imperative something ought to be done. Hypothetical imperatives state should to do action as means to end - if committed to getting good education, should study hard even when don’t feel like it. Categorical imperatives present action as must do, without regard to other end. Kant - they’re objective and acting on them is rational, rather than fulfilling subjective desire. Foot notes we contrast moral judgements with hypothetical imperatives in this sense. There are 2 uses of should/ought: 1) person no longer wants what the hypothetical imperative assumes, so should no longer act on it – should take third left, if want to go restaurant. If no longer want to go to restaurant, then no longer take third left. 2) use should/ought when don’t withdraw claim that you should do something – “you shouldn’t lie “, “I want to lie because I want to deceive people””what you want is irrelevant”, here, you can’t escape requirement to act just because it doesn’t suit you.
when you no longer want to go to the restaurant, what does not acting on the hypothetical imperative prove? also, isn't you shouldn't lie a moral judgment and not an hypothetical imperative? so why has Foot used that example?
Joe312
0
reply
bump - ive been stuck on this for over a day! 
can't someone explain the meaning of this paragraph please?
can't someone explain the meaning of this paragraph please?
0
reply
Foot notes that we do commonly contrast moral judgments with hypothetical imperatives in this sense. We find two uses of ‘should’ or ‘ought’ in how we use language. In the first use, if we discover the person doesn’t want what the imperative assumes, or we discover the action isn’t a suitable means, then we no longer say they should act on it. For example, ‘you should take the third left if you are going to the restaurant’: if you are not going to the restaurant, or the third left is a dead-end, then we no longer say that you should take the third left. But we also use the words ‘should’ and ‘ought’ when we don’t withdraw our claim that ‘you should do x’. ‘You shouldn’t lie’, ‘But I don’t care about the truth, I really want to trick him’, ‘That’s irrelevant; you shouldn’t lie’. You can’t rebut or escape the requirement to act just by showing that it isn’t doesn’t help you get what you want.
the original paragraph I dont understand.
the original paragraph I dont understand.
0
reply
Report
#4
Kant's deontology depends on there being categorical imperatives.
Kant thinks that our having reason commits us to certain rules e.g. don't lie.
Some imperatives are categorical for Kant because it is irrational to disobey a rule which we have accepted.
The point of the paragraph is that Foot is showing how we do talk 'as if' some imperatives were categorical, e.g. lying. However she claims that such imperatives are in fact non-hypothetical, i.e. like the etiquette rules of a club. They are not hypothetical within the rules of the club, however there is no categorical rule that we have to be part of the club. Similarly, there is no categorical imperative that we have to adopt.
Kant thinks that our having reason commits us to certain rules e.g. don't lie.
Some imperatives are categorical for Kant because it is irrational to disobey a rule which we have accepted.
The point of the paragraph is that Foot is showing how we do talk 'as if' some imperatives were categorical, e.g. lying. However she claims that such imperatives are in fact non-hypothetical, i.e. like the etiquette rules of a club. They are not hypothetical within the rules of the club, however there is no categorical rule that we have to be part of the club. Similarly, there is no categorical imperative that we have to adopt.
1
reply
(Original post by Joe312)
Kant's deontology depends on there being categorical imperatives.
Kant thinks that our having reason commits us to certain rules e.g. don't lie.
Some imperatives are categorical for Kant because it is irrational to disobey a rule which we have accepted.
The point of the paragraph is that Foot is showing how we do talk 'as if' some imperatives were categorical, e.g. lying. However she claims that such imperatives are in fact non-hypothetical, i.e. like the etiquette rules of a club. They are not hypothetical within the rules of the club, however there is no categorical rule that we have to be part of the club. Similarly, there is no categorical imperative that we have to adopt.
Kant's deontology depends on there being categorical imperatives.
Kant thinks that our having reason commits us to certain rules e.g. don't lie.
Some imperatives are categorical for Kant because it is irrational to disobey a rule which we have accepted.
The point of the paragraph is that Foot is showing how we do talk 'as if' some imperatives were categorical, e.g. lying. However she claims that such imperatives are in fact non-hypothetical, i.e. like the etiquette rules of a club. They are not hypothetical within the rules of the club, however there is no categorical rule that we have to be part of the club. Similarly, there is no categorical imperative that we have to adopt.
is that right?
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by FurtherMaths2020)
sharpness is the arete (virtue) that helps a knife fulfil its ergon (characteristic form of activity) of cutting well
is that right?
sharpness is the arete (virtue) that helps a knife fulfil its ergon (characteristic form of activity) of cutting well
is that right?
For humans, our unique characteristic is reason and a virtue is a type of habit which helps us to reason well.
0
reply
(Original post by Joe312)
That's Aristotle's function argument in the case of a knife yes.
For humans, our unique characteristic is reason and a virtue is a type of habit which helps us to reason well.
That's Aristotle's function argument in the case of a knife yes.
For humans, our unique characteristic is reason and a virtue is a type of habit which helps us to reason well.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Ofqual consultationTeachers to use 'mini-exams' and other work to decide grades
- Is it too late to do well in my A-levels?
- What Harry Potter house are you in?
- 2021 wellbeing blog launch
- Student tips on lockdown mental health